This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
They don't need to ban AI, they need to enforce responsibility for "War Crimes."
Doesn't matter if you used AI to kill schoolgirls or not, the fact is: you were in command and you ordered a strike that killed schoolgirls. The transistor in the circuit board of the guidance computer is not liable, the human making the decision to go ahead with the strike is.
what about both?
Sue a transistor, see how it conducts itself.
false equivalence. that's like saying in defense of war crimes, sue the weapons and war vehicles, and see how they defend themselves in court.
And how is that false equivalence to an algorithm running on a bunch of transistors?
because the point of my example is that neither case works like that. you can't sue weapons, you sue those who commanded their use. you can't sue transistors.. and what does that mean? it means you sue those that commanded the use of AI assisted weapons.
common sense, really.
Reread the thread and point out anywhere you get even the slightest impression that I disagree with what you just wrote...
I read this as implying whwt I say does not make sense:
Sue a transistor, see how it conducts itself.
A - it's a bad semiconductor pun
B - who in their right mind would think that a transistor is a legitimate target of a lawsuit?
C - all "AI" is is a pile of transistors with various charge states representing the software layers. It was built by people, same as a Smith & Wesson 38, nobody is suing the guns for people they're killing, either, not even when they have fault sights and hit unintended targets.
B - who in their right mind would think that a transistor is a legitimate target of a lawsuit?
someone who wants to intentionally misunderstand the situation, wrecking the discussion. I'm not saying you did that, but it's not rare on forums like this.
Eh
We can kinda guarantee that future wars will be fought with bots, ai and drones etc
Fewer humans will be killed in theory
Of course then the winner is just who can make the most drones
But i do prefer bots and drones dying, over humans. I mean chemical weapons are already illegal in war and russia still use it.. need to fight fire with hotter fire
It will be robots sent to kill humans, whether by another country or the country on its own citizens.
Robots killing robots is just damage to capital which the elites will make sure is not the path forward.
I mean bombs are made to blow up so constantly having reasons to blow up means there's reasons to keep on making money off the bomb factories. So it props up the military industrial complex
This is a complete misread of what this means. Drones are used to kill people, not other drones. Drones are last priority targets in basically all cases except for strategic defensive positions. This switch means more death at the hands of less (or no) people. It's like arguing that nukes are good because they're so destructive that they'll end war. Which is the opposite of what they did, wars just became proxy wars in an attempt to drain your adversary of resources, instead of direct conflict to stop them. We have more international conflict now than at any point in human history. This will make that even worse.
Where do u see chemical weapons used in Ukraine?
